Transcript Response to Intervention

OrRTI – Oregon’s Response
to Intervention Initiative
Jennifer Doolittle
Oregon Department of Education
June 21, 2006
Objectives
• Basic understanding of RTI
• Description of Oregon’s RTI Initiative
• Basics regarding special education
eligibility using RTI
Resources
• ODE’s RTI Web page:
http://www.ode.state.or.us/initiatives/idea/rt
i.aspx (Please read the Technical Assistance paper linked from
this page)
• National Center on Progress Monitoring:
www.studentprogress.org
• Tigard Tualatin SD:
http://www.ttsd.k12.or.us/district/studentservices/oregons-response-to-intervention
Implementing RTI in TigardTualatin School District
OSEP Leadership Conference
March 30, 2005
Carol Sadler, Ph.D.
503-431-4117 - [email protected]
Response to Intervention
A Case Illustration
Lowell Ernst
Pella Community
School District
Brian Miller
Pella Community
School District
Wendy Robinson
Heartland Area
Education Agency
W. David Tilly
Heartland Area
Education Agency
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Presentation provided to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education Satellite Series. November 9, 2005
Definition
• RtI is the practice of providing
high-quality instruction and intervention
matched to student need, monitoring
progress frequently to make decisions
about change in instruction or goals and
applying child response data to important
educational decisions. (NASDSE, 2005)
• IDEA 2004 provides for the use of RtI as part
of the process to determine eligibility for
learning disabilities.
Consensus Report –
LD Summit 2001
• IQ/Achievement Discrepancy is neither
necessary nor sufficient for identifying
individuals with SLD (specific learning
disabilities).
• IQ tests do not need to be given in most
evaluations of children with SLD.
• There should be alternate ways to identify
individuals with SLD in addition to achievement
testing, history, and observations of the child.
Consensus Report –
Alternatives 2001
• Response to quality intervention is the most promising
method of alternate identification and can both promote
effective practices in schools and help to close the gap
between identification and treatment.
• Any effort to scale up response to intervention should be
based on problem solving models that use progress
monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention in
relation to the student’s response to intervention.
• Problem solving models have been shown to be effective
in public school settings and in research.
Vocabulary – Convergence of Thinking
• Problem Solving Model (PS): Proposed, implemented and
refined since the early ’80s in special education as an
alternative system to the traditional Refer-Test-Place
system. It encompasses both general education and
special education systems. Initially was individual student
focused.
• Response To Intervention (RTI) – Also called a Standard
Treatment Approach (STA), Resistance to Intervention and
Responsiveness to Intervention: Being proposed by
researchers across the country as an alternative method for
identifying individuals with Learning Disabilities. An
opportunity to link IDEA thinking with NCLB thinking.
• School-Wide Model (SWM): An integrative way of thinking
logically and rationally about meeting All children’s needs in
a school. It represents a promising way for schools to
comprehensively draw together and allocate their resources
to meet children’s educational needs. It is a “smart” system.
Why Use a Response to Intervention
Approach?
• Model is not just conceptual but
practical
• Multidisciplinary ... it actually increases
teaming
• Preventative / early intervention focus
• Increases amount of services to
children
• Increases parental awareness and
involvement
• Frees staff to make professional decisions
• Process is developmental ... requires
flexibility
• Limited only by teams in ability to generate
solutions
• Emphasis is always on least-restrictive
environment
• Emphasis is on exit as much as entrance
• Match with our beliefs about education for
all kids ...
To Get There in Practice: We Need
to Do Three Things
1.
2.
3.
Adopt “Smart” system
structures
Import the “Scientific
Method” into practice
Use scientifically
validated teaching
practices to the
greatest degree
possible
Thing 1: Adopt Smart System Structures
School-Wide Systems for Student Success
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Of longer duration
5-10%
10-15%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
75-85%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
10-15%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
75-85%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Thing 2: Import the Scientific Method Into
Practice: The Problem Solving Process
•
Define the Problem
(Screening and Diagnostic Assessments)
What is the problem and why is it happening?
• Develop a Plan
• Evaluate
(Goal Setting and Planning)
(Progress Monitoring
Assessment)
What are we
going to do?
Did our plan work?
• Implement Plan
(Treatment Integrity)
Carry out the intervention
Thing 2: In RTI, We Differentiate Assessment for
the Purpose of Differentiating Instruction
• Def: Assessment, is the
process of collecting
information for the purpose of
making decisions or
answering questions (Salvia
& Ysseldyke, 1991)
• Different kinds of
assessment data are needed
for different decisions within
the system
• 3 Major Types of
Decisions/Assessments
Thing 2: Three Primary Types
of Assessment
1. Screening Assessments: – assessments used to determine if
additional investigation is warranted
2. Diagnostic Assessments: Assessment conducted at any time during
the school year when more in-depth analysis of a student’s
strengths and weaknesses is needed to guide instruction (Institute
for the Development of Educational Achievement, 2003)
3. Progress Monitoring Assessments: Assessment conducted a
minimum of three times a year or on a routine basis (i.e., weekly,
monthly, or quarterly) using comparable and multiple test forms to
(a) estimate rates of student improvement, (b) identify children who
are not demonstrating adequate progress and therefore require
additional or different forms of instruction, and/or (c) compare the
efficacy of different forms of instruction for struggling readers and
thereby design more effective, individualized instructional programs
for those at-risk learners. (adapted from Institute for the
Development of Educational Achievement, 2003)
Core Principles of Response to
Intervention (RtI)
•
•
•
•
We can effectively serve all children
Intervene early
Use a multi-tier model of service delivery
Use a problem-solving method to make
decisions within a multi-tier model
Core Principles of Response to
Intervention (RtI)
• Use research-based scientifically validated
interventions/instruction
• Monitor student progress to inform instruction
• Use data to make decisions. A DATA-BASED
decision regarding student response to
intervention is central to RtI practice
• Use assessment for screening, diagnostic and
progress monitoring purposes
What It Takes
• Shifts in Thinking
• Professional
Development
• Technical Assistance
• Administrative and Policy
Support
Professional Development
• Leadership (policy makers and superintendents)
• Administrative groups (district and building
level)
• Direct service groups (teachers and other
instructional staff)
• Related service groups (consultants, school
psychologists, social workers, speech
pathologists, etc.)
• Parents
Technical Support
• Data management
system
• Inventory of
resources (financial
and personnel)
• Mentoring and
coaching
Administrative and Policy
Support
• Organizing and implementing decisions around
curriculum, instruction and use of resources
based on student performance data at all levels
• Administrative leadership and support of databased decision making
• Policy to support use of RtI and problem solving
to meet the needs of full range of learners within
a system
Thing 1: Adopt Smart System Structures
School-Wide Systems for Student Success
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
•Of longer duration
5-10%
10-15%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
75-85%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
10-15%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
75-85%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Classroom (Core) Instruction
• Is the core material matched to
your population?
• How much consistency and
integrity of delivery do you
have between teachers?
• How consistent are your
evaluation instruments? Do
they furnish you with the data
you need to make decisions on
moving to the next level?
• What strategies and tools do
your teachers have to
remediate in the classroom?
Supplemental Services
• Title One teachers deliver
specialized reading
instruction and use
progress monitoring to
measure the
effectiveness of the
intervention.
–
–
–
–
–
Phonemic Awareness
Phonics/Decoding skills
Fluency/Accuracy building
Vocabulary building
Comprehension skills
Intensive Services
• Layering of instruction
– General education
extended team
• Individualized
interventions based on
further problem analysis
of student needs.
– Special education
services
• IEP development
Daisy participates in the
general curriculum
EBIS Team reviews
screening data and places
Daisy in group intervention
Daisy isn’t
doing well
Daisy may recycle
Daisy
doesn’t
improve
EBIS Team designs
individual
intervention
Daisy may recycle
Daisy
doesn’t
improve
Special Education referral is initiated
Daisy
improves
Resumes
general
program
Daisy
improves
Intervention is
intense and LD
is suspected
Improvement is
good and other
factors are
suspected as
cause
One Model of Teaming
Academic TEAM
Meets weekly
Plans and implements school-wide reading/academic
Monitors all students in small group and
individual interventions
Makes referrals to special education
GRADE LEVEL
TEAMS
Meet monthly
Plan and implement small
group reading/academic
interventions
EBS TEAM
Meets Twice Monthly
Plans and implements
school-wide and small
group behavior
supports
Tigard Tualatin Findings
• Case Study
• Accomplishments
– Integrated, collaborative teams, district and
schools
– Generic service delivery
– Identify ALL students and provide
interventions
– Reducing “instructionally disabled”
– Whole child approach
– Research-based programs and practices
• Trends in Identification Rates, earlier
Or-RTI 2005-2006
• Contractor: Tigard-Tualatin SD
• 5 districts received 4 days of training at TT
•
•
•
•
Prerequisites
2 days of training on site
Continued technical assistance in 2006-2007
Created district implementation plans
• 9 districts received $5,000 grants
• Used for training, planning, buying supplementary
curricula, and building progress monitoring
database
• Conferences to build readiness
2006-2007 Or-RTI
• New districts
– Training will be similar to 2005-2006
• Continue working with sustaining districts
• Conferences
Vision for Oregon
• Support as many districts as possible in
their work toward readiness or in
implementing RTI
• Ensure that appropriate policies and
procedures are in place for all districts
using RTI to determine eligibility of
students with learning disabilities
Dual Discrepancy
– Low skills
(The easier part)
– Slow progress despite intensive
intervention (The trickier part)
Are the Student’s Skills
Low?
• Determine
parameters
– Likely 20th-30th
percentile
• Maintain consistency
– School to school
– Grade to grade
– Child to child
Is the Intervention
Intensive?
• Scientific,
research-based
(IDEA 2004)
• Sufficient
frequency and
duration
• Implemented with
fidelity
Is There Progress?
• “How much
progress is
enough?”
– Context is Key
• Typical growth
Evaluation Planning – Step
#1
• What you know
– Individual Problem Solving Worksheet
– Student Intervention Profile
– Progress Monitoring Data
Evaluation Planning – Step
#2
• What you need to know
– General Requirements
– LD Eligibility Statement
– Filling in the holes
Consideration: Evaluation
Process
• Evaluation planning;
to
•Assess all areas;
to
• Identify special education and related
services needs;
within the
•Evaluation timeline;
using
• Assessments as designed
Important Idea:
• RTI is one
component of a
comprehensive
evaluation.
Susie: Is she resistant to
instruction?
•
•
•
•
2nd Grader
Fall: ORF 22
Winter: ORF 55
Gain: 2.37
words/week
• Typical gain: 1.5
words/week
• Core program
• + SMART volunteer
• + Read Naturally 2
times per week
• +Phonics for Reading
and Read Naturally 5
times per week
Elliot: Is he resistant to
instruction?
• 25thth percentile on
ORF
• Remains at 25th
percentile
• Core program
• 20 minutes/day
additional practice
• 40 minutes/day
explicit instruction and
guided practice
What About…?
• English Language Learners
– Most useful approach
– Interventions in language of core
program
– Cohort comparison critical
– Review Section 6 on LD Eligibility
Report Checklist
What About…?
• Secondary Students
– Problem Solving Approach
• Similar thinking…weight of progress vs.
weight of instructional support
Eligibility Decision Making
–It comes down
to the balance.
How does the
“weight” of the
intervention
compare to the
“weight” of
progress?